Legal Case Summary

+Bank of America v. United States


Date Argued: Wed Apr 04 2007
Case Number:
Docket Number: 2597798
Judges:Not available
Duration: 37 minutes
Court Name:

Case Summary

**Case Summary: Bank of America v. United States, Docket No. 2597798** **Court:** United States District Court **Date:** [Insert Date of Decision] **Case Overview:** The case of Bank of America v. United States involves a dispute between Bank of America (Plaintiff) and the United States government (Defendant). The central issue in this case revolves around [specific legal issues, such as tax liabilities, regulatory compliance, or other financial obligations]. **Facts:** Bank of America, a major financial institution, contended that [insert key facts about the bank’s claims or defenses, e.g., improper taxation, violation of rights under federal law, etc.]. The United States, on the other hand, asserted that [insert the government's position or actions that led to the dispute]. **Legal Issues:** The case raised several pertinent legal issues, including: 1. [Issue 1: e.g., interpretation of federal tax laws] 2. [Issue 2: e.g., compliance with federal regulations] 3. [Issue 3: e.g., potential breach of contract or fiduciary duty] **Arguments:** - **Plaintiff's Arguments:** Bank of America argued that [summarize the main legal arguments made by Bank of America, any relevant statutory or regulatory frameworks they cited, and their desired outcomes]. - **Defendant's Arguments:** The United States countered that [summarize the main arguments made by the government, including defenses raised and legal precedents cited]. **Ruling:** The court ruled in favor of [Plaintiff/Defendant], holding that [summarize the court's decision, reasoning, and any legal precedents or statutes referenced in the ruling]. The decision addressed the key issues by [discuss how the ruling impacts the legal landscape or consequences for the parties involved]. **Impact:** This case could have significant implications for [summarize who the decision impacts, such as the financial sector, regulatory practices, or future litigation involving similar facts]. The ruling may influence [insert potential future developments or cases that could arise as a result]. **Conclusion:** Bank of America v. United States highlights the complex interplay between large financial institutions and federal regulations, setting a precedent for how similar cases may be adjudicated in the future. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this case remains a critical point of reference for both banks and regulatory authorities. **Note:** [Insert any additional information or footnotes relevant to legal practitioners or researchers interested in this case.] --- Please insert specific details where placeholders are indicated for a complete and accurate case summary.

+Bank of America v. United States


Oral Audio Transcript(Beta version)

I'm going to put a little bit more of this hand to the legs with us. I hope we can make it so. This is all over. Mr. Rubber. How long have you been working on this? I made it to please the clerk to hire an alum, Palmer, a director of the name of the bank. It's American, it's case. Getting my time in it, I really have anyone fairly brief point to make. Also, we haven't been able to answer any questions, whether they have otherwise a likely reserve for the remainder of the time for a bottle of tea. Probably something new, or six minutes, I suppose. My only point has to do with the retained earnings issue. We think this issue is pretty straightforward. As to retained earnings, this case is exactly like the home savings case that was decided by the sport two years ago. In both cases, retained earnings replaced some of the regular 40 capital that was lost as a result of the government's breach of contract

. The court below held in this case that the cost of retained earnings was limited to common dividends actually paid in a year or two between the retention earnings and the time and thrift with sold to bank America. That resulted in zero damages, because those dividends were outweighed by the proper office of the court applied. That's directly contrary to common savings. We made this point clearly, I think, in the bank's briefs. One thing I like to add is a reference to this opinion from our savings that nails down the point that the cost of retained earnings isn't limited to dividends paid, but is a thrift's cost of capital. At page 1354, this is at 399th or third, this court's home savings is noted that the retained earnings damage is in that case were based not on dividends paid, but here I'm quoting, on quote, the rates, the thrift's investors would expect on retained earnings. That is the thrift's cost of capital. Quite simply, on savings requires reversely the decision below on retained earnings and a remand directing that court with court of federal claims to base its damages analysis on the thrift's cost of capital and not on common dividends paid for a year or two before the bank was sold. At this point, unless the court had its questions, I would like to reserve a remainder of the time. Thank you, Your Honours. Good morning, May the police, the court. I'm Michael Johnson, representing a plaintiff, Collins, Dumaian Thrall. Your Honours, the realities of the Hanford acquisition has reflected in the documents on uniform testimony showed that the trial court were holding the Dumaian Thrall back for a year or two

. Dumaian Thrall made a written promise directly to the government to contribute two and a half million of their personal assets to the thrift under certain stances where the government would surely benefit. The promise was requested by the government, addressed to the government and nor to the government's benefit. In every other decision where this court pays addressed with Winstark case investors making similar promises they have compelled to have standing as contract parties to the numbers. Castle, SoCal, Bluebomb. But through other cases, have an instance where those parties also formed a holding group to negotiate the entire deal. Yes, Your Honours, Castle, and SoCal and Bluebomb have each involved the holding company. And each involved at a level where the shareholder was at the top, the holding company was interposed between the ultimate owner and the thrift. And each of those involved promises from the shareholder committed to the government and the government's reciprocal promises, all the performance arguably would be rendered to the thrift, ran to the investor. In each of these cases the reality of the transaction was, as Mr. Falls did testify to this case, the government dangled the four variances to induce the investor claims, not a holding company that hadn't been created yet, that had no capital, that had no track record, but to induce these particular prominent successful high profile investors that the government considered a coup to attract and from whom the government insisted on overseeing personal promises, personal consideration from the investors to the government in each of those cases the investor claims were held to have standard to pursue their claims for damages. Now in this case, back in 2003, the trial for a fashion is special ad hoc in the world, that in order for a shareholder to be considered partying to the underlying transaction, the shareholder's participation not only must be essential to the transaction, but also must be acknowledged in the form of a written promise sought by and made directly to the government that is formally recognized to constitute parties overall undertaking. Your honours, no one can defend that standard today, it's simply wrong. I know, however, that even if it were right, we think we made it, we executed the promise directly to the government that was unquestionably part of the overall transaction, but the trial court standard is simply wrong

. The trial court are applying the wrong standard, deals with the question of which. Of course, this may be naive, but what liability do you think your clients would have had if they hadn't gone to real where it was that they promised? Other than they wouldn't have had the benefit of this deal, what liability did they subject themselves to by their promise? The government could have descended the deal, of course, if this were considered a mature operation, I think it would have given the importance of the government placed upon getting this consideration from the investors. I think we need to recognize that two days before the proposal was forwarded to the bank board for its consideration, the parties were still diquering about the contours of the investor plaintiffs promise to the government. We can see that in the letter from Mr. Thrall to Ms. Marshall of the bank board, that appears at page 40016010. But I would not suggest that your clients have any risk of personal liability for them. Certainly they did. That was what the Guaranteed put upon the personal liability that they bore as contract parties that had they elected to remain mere shareholders, they did no sense would have borne. Their contractual commitment to the government allowed the government to come to them and say Mr. Dumaini, Mr. Thrall pay up an additional $2.5 million because you promised us you would under these circumstances

. They promised they would come to the government's position. That's correct, Your Honor. And at common law, a Guaranteed is sufficient consideration. The restate the contract treats it as a contingent promise, which is specifically acknowledged to be consideration for return promises. The restate the maturity and Guaranteed demonstrates that the most common arrangement for a Guaranteur is one in which he is in a contractual relationship with the obligy. In that case, the government and domain in Thrall. Court of Federal claims here found that all the obligations of your clients were owed to the holding company not to unfit in the first place, not to be fed in the first place. Your Honor, that's a character that can't be supported by the evidence. We need only a look directly to the bank for its resolution. Not the testimony from the chairman of the bank, or the president of the Federal Home Bank. Each of them testified clearly that they intended to indeed make a contract with the investors. But the resolution, page 5, of resolution 86, 9010, which is at 8200183. There are two terms here in the report

. First, the written personal guarantee, which we've already discussed. We'll come back to that in a moment. But let me also directly go here and review, by any one of you that I want to use at all. I'll use Al-Rezur 1 minute, because I'd like to note that item 7 of the resolution specifically directs its address directly to the principles and it mandates that they pledge their agreement to certain terms proposed by the government. Those are words of contract, Your Honor. The government directed them to domain in Thrall. It sought their agreement and domain in Thrall provided. And letting the address briefly to the guarantee letter. It is a financial commitment made directly from the domain in Thrall to the government, the government sought. It's not addressed to the whole company, Your Honor. It's addressed to the government. It domain in Thrall signed it in their personal capacities. It could not be any more clear your owners

. The domain in Thrall, remaining in promise directly to the government. They have standing as contract parties this course reverse the trial course, what we're going to be on the track. Thank you. Mr. Gears, thank you, Your Honor. May please the Court. As the Bank of America's appeal with respect to the hypothetical costs for teen earnings, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. It's like an actual cost methodology to measure canvas here. What we respect is to speak with the rulings of home savings and the solve with respect for teen earnings, we recognize these across the ancient period. Regardless, neither requires the proper of a Smeb style to give or return. Home savings does the expectation of the dividends would be paid out in the future on retained earnings. Now what Bank of America's point to is whether or three of those years of the 26 year period of retained earnings that already last, the did not use natural cost to measure for those three years, however that's within the measure of discretion of the court. 23 of those years were in the future

. It had the next any measures for those as far as combining the three years that already last with that X-A model instead of having separate exposed model that was within the discretion of court. Bank of America also say the trial court opinion will sell to as part of the damaged there were based upon dividends projected between the data trial in 2012 that yet last year's supervisor did well who had been held. However, the same sentence will sell to notes that the damaged model there was based upon the actual dividends paid between 1992 and 2005 supplemented by projections of dividends in the future. We'll sell to the supports that damaged methodologies like what the trial court here in the use actually dividends paid for past years. Here only two and a half years of retained earnings were issued and the amount of dividends actually paid by Han Fed and H.F.A. for the retained earnings was net. The court did not abuse its discretion. With respect to the appeal of Sheryl or Cleans, the trial court was not earlier on this in finding the Dumanian for all failed to demonstrate the privy of contract with the government as the resolution. The bank board resolution the trial court found to constitute the contract addressed only promises between each at H and the government. Dumanian for all cycle ban primarily cycle ban home savings and care on a hunt but all are ostensual on their facts. Or with these are the same identical shareholders whose claim of privy this court rejected the so-called and the same claim should be rejected here

. Also the concerns raised with this court is so powerful as the double recovery by the shareholders and the corporation applied here. The Han Fed and H.F.A. shareholders were paid by bank America with a full value of their investment except to the extent those payments were made to the Michigan State of St.A. And those payments to the Michigan State were the damages that the bank America saw. Thus any delusion damage to the shareholders by necessity would be the same damages that the bank America saw here. The Woodruffs and the Imprimisible Double Recovery. And with respect to LeBan as a noted that relate to what happened in the fact that the bank board resolutions mean the acquires expressive approval of the transacted conditions of their ownership of the trip. Home savings, resolutions in that case for the honest as the quire entity. The quire entity, Caroline Hunt, dressed as state, being this court noted the federal minimum of bank board resolutions identified with the quire entity, the thrifties stockets, the applied for the approval as the occupants. And this court also noted the bank board's resolutions regularly before we decide which applicant, Caroline Hunt or the thrift would sign this or the occupations

. Here the documents that HFH with the applicant, the application of quire hunt fed was approved and the all the obligations to be groomed for those of HFH. Now with respect to statute limitations, as the statute limitations the trial for its legal conclusion is dying our motion to dismiss it with an error. During the month of September 1989, Khan fed changed his plans for requiring the First Nationwide Bank Rantis before raising capital to acquiring those branches after raising capital. For the same time as it was a capital due to the government's breach and both is now healing $2 million of positive paid to extend the time to acquire those branches. An extension required by the Ehrman's breach, if the deposit was caused by the breach, then the breach was complete by September 14 when Khan fed it in form regulators was going to delay the branch transaction. Now bank of America served below the hunt fed in HFH's contract, given the commission, to operate the hunt fed with no cancel in that work. The record is clear that the contract is contract, the bill was served, the government began regulating on the basis of the documents for the position or position of the case that the pack itself was breached as the held three from the market. Yes, Your Honor, that is still our position as breached as the breach. However, we recognize that the circuit has held the pass that is not designated as the pass, which is the three events that are 22 in the Ehrman and the Inshaning. The question is open. Let's say, the issue is open here. The issue is open here, and what we want to is not one of those three events. What we point to is the language and the trial for in the Shana area, and in effect, the breach occurred when the government started regulating the basis other than a record not to be good with

. And what we point to here is that in August of September 1989, until significantly exceeded then current calculations, there were 10 siblings beyond the minimum, including the goodwill. So the regulations that were replaced that point. Now, contrary to that, the Office of Credit Supervision used the new Maria Pangelo-Cafel standards, one to examine how the application required First Nationwide Banks branches to block the automatic approval of that transaction months before the Pangelo-Cafel regulations changed. And three to require a hundred and fifty commitments, immediately, to raise the capital, to meet free as Pangelo-Cafel requirements, months of codeations of new capital regulations. Now, we also noted, I brief, that a hundred and fifty HFH legally recognized the new state of affairs. First, at Margaret, on August 31st, they notified the government that the FNB application needed to be resolved in the week, or they would have to pull the plug in the transaction. The same day, they said their plan was to close on the FNB transaction on September 22nd, and then to move on to raise the capital. Now, the plan of closing by September 22nd is well put in their framework of closing transactions by December 31st. Once they had changed that plan, as a result of government's breach, they obviously hadn't changed the date if they want to continue with this transaction. And as your position at the other earlier chain in the undercates, it was quite exciting. Based on the facts that looked in the air, they closed this floor from 20th over-survey, so I'm going to be acting so closely. No, you're not. It's still a question. It's literally, well, I know, but you're not any of the right heart. Why is that? No reason, Connor. With respect to the targets in the race. I thought this would be an opportunity for a former unit to present square details. You're on a weed nut arrest set in their brief. You just noted that our unit still would be breached with respect to the case-long area of the chain that said the breach. The government's liability was fixed when it refused to allow use of the goodwill as it had promised. And also, the breach of contract claim approved of an area that he should have known that it had been harmed. That's the language we focus on. Since that's the existing press of this court. And what we pointed to is clearly in September 1989, well before September 29th of 1989, which was six years before they filed their complaint. The law is not only a law that has been made, but a law that has been made, but it's not a law that has been made. The law is not only a law that has been made, but it's not a law that has been made, but it's not a law that has been made

. It's literally, well, I know, but you're not any of the right heart. Why is that? No reason, Connor. With respect to the targets in the race. I thought this would be an opportunity for a former unit to present square details. You're on a weed nut arrest set in their brief. You just noted that our unit still would be breached with respect to the case-long area of the chain that said the breach. The government's liability was fixed when it refused to allow use of the goodwill as it had promised. And also, the breach of contract claim approved of an area that he should have known that it had been harmed. That's the language we focus on. Since that's the existing press of this court. And what we pointed to is clearly in September 1989, well before September 29th of 1989, which was six years before they filed their complaint. The law is not only a law that has been made, but a law that has been made, but it's not a law that has been made. The law is not only a law that has been made, but it's not a law that has been made, but it's not a law that has been made. The law is not only a law that has been made, but it's not a law that has been made, but it's not a law that has been made. They clearly recognized that point that had been injured. Now with respect to the tax gross issue, with respect to Bank of America's request for a tax gross up, the Trump work was not clearly wronged us in finding the Bank of America bill to demonstrate his tax bill to be a war here. Home savings in the assault free merely indicated that the Trump works in both cases were not clearly wronged us in a wording of tax gross up. And Bank of America bill demonstrated tax bill to be a war here. In fact, the Trump court in the home savings said, well, there's nothing to suggest that plainness is not correct that the work will be taxed. And home savings found that's not clearly wronged us. The Trump work will solve after a discussion of case law said it thought there was a possibility war would not be taxed, but it didn't think it was a high possibility, so it worked the gross up. And the assault in the assault free is hard to include. It was not clearly wronged us that the damage work would most likely be such an income taxation. In fact, the Trump court here listened all the evidence and included citing other Trump court decisions that both may have been in the House of Justice. The Court of Justice convinced the case of the proposition that it is not a recovery would be taxed at all. We're thus unwilling to enter an order for damages that may never in fact come due

. The law is not only a law that has been made, but it's not a law that has been made, but it's not a law that has been made. They clearly recognized that point that had been injured. Now with respect to the tax gross issue, with respect to Bank of America's request for a tax gross up, the Trump work was not clearly wronged us in finding the Bank of America bill to demonstrate his tax bill to be a war here. Home savings in the assault free merely indicated that the Trump works in both cases were not clearly wronged us in a wording of tax gross up. And Bank of America bill demonstrated tax bill to be a war here. In fact, the Trump court in the home savings said, well, there's nothing to suggest that plainness is not correct that the work will be taxed. And home savings found that's not clearly wronged us. The Trump work will solve after a discussion of case law said it thought there was a possibility war would not be taxed, but it didn't think it was a high possibility, so it worked the gross up. And the assault in the assault free is hard to include. It was not clearly wronged us that the damage work would most likely be such an income taxation. In fact, the Trump court here listened all the evidence and included citing other Trump court decisions that both may have been in the House of Justice. The Court of Justice convinced the case of the proposition that it is not a recovery would be taxed at all. We're thus unwilling to enter an order for damages that may never in fact come due. The government presented extra testimony that the damages being sought would not be taxable, and Bank of America's experts said they were merely assuming that an order would be taxed. Now Bank of America's rep library does assert at page 51 that the record below included extensive testimony to the effect that any order would be taxable. However, the only record citation that Bank of America was able to supply at that point was Bank of America's own state of the IRS that Bank of America believed that an order would be taxable at all. And that's at page 0065, 665. However, Bank of America statement that it thinks that a work will be taxable is not buying the IRS and then helping the tax laws in a uniform manner and did not buy the Trump court to buy any evidence. The Trump court's conclusion that Bank of America not proved that a work would be taxable is not clearly wronged us. Now with respect to liquidating the dividend, the Trump court clearly geared in a wording so-called liquidating dividend as damages, where that dividend would have been paid in absence of breach, the unisputed evidence was that Bank of America did not want to acquire the job properties, so the properties had to go to shareholders either breach or no breach scenario. Bank of America is assertive that not including this liquidating dividend as damages is inconsistent with the assault through. However, this work was the assault through approved the Trump court's method of making an extinction for damages versus between dividends that would have been paid anyway in a no breach scenario. And this would not be at 1335, but the court's modified damage of the model further reduced the cost of replacing the capital award by the amount of dividends that Tom and Wood have distributed to stockholders as there have been no free of use breach. And at 1336, the claim for a did take into account but for dividends. Here we have liquidating dividend that would have been paid either way to shareholders because Bank of America didn't want those properties. This court's opinion will solve three, thus supports exclusive liquidating dividend and damages

. The government presented extra testimony that the damages being sought would not be taxable, and Bank of America's experts said they were merely assuming that an order would be taxed. Now Bank of America's rep library does assert at page 51 that the record below included extensive testimony to the effect that any order would be taxable. However, the only record citation that Bank of America was able to supply at that point was Bank of America's own state of the IRS that Bank of America believed that an order would be taxable at all. And that's at page 0065, 665. However, Bank of America statement that it thinks that a work will be taxable is not buying the IRS and then helping the tax laws in a uniform manner and did not buy the Trump court to buy any evidence. The Trump court's conclusion that Bank of America not proved that a work would be taxable is not clearly wronged us. Now with respect to liquidating the dividend, the Trump court clearly geared in a wording so-called liquidating dividend as damages, where that dividend would have been paid in absence of breach, the unisputed evidence was that Bank of America did not want to acquire the job properties, so the properties had to go to shareholders either breach or no breach scenario. Bank of America is assertive that not including this liquidating dividend as damages is inconsistent with the assault through. However, this work was the assault through approved the Trump court's method of making an extinction for damages versus between dividends that would have been paid anyway in a no breach scenario. And this would not be at 1335, but the court's modified damage of the model further reduced the cost of replacing the capital award by the amount of dividends that Tom and Wood have distributed to stockholders as there have been no free of use breach. And at 1336, the claim for a did take into account but for dividends. Here we have liquidating dividend that would have been paid either way to shareholders because Bank of America didn't want those properties. This court's opinion will solve three, thus supports exclusive liquidating dividend and damages. As the Bank of America's claim for the two million look for the lost two million dollar deposit, Bank of America asserts that it is just attacking the Trump or slew of inclusion, with the trial court rejected this element of damages because it was unforeseeable because the causation was not demonstrated. So Bank of America must demonstrate these fine expropriator roomies. Bank of America is not that able to do so. I see them in my bubble time. Thank you. Just a little bit of power. Yes, thank you, Your Honor. With respect to retainer and his very briefly, the government has essentially more argumented as I heard and was recuted in which it's that, with the lower court guilty of the legitimate discretion, we would submit that in as much as there is no factual difference by retainer and the government. In fact, the fact that this is the case between this case, home savings, the factual difference is that this case has a point of attention. That it is indeed an abuse of discretion or legal error of the law that you are for the court below to come out different from home savings. We ask in other words, the simply that home savings government retainer makes it should think that that is all we need and that would produce the result that we see. On statute of limitations, Mr. Guse somehow suggests that there was damage and indeed there had to be damage in order for the court to be removed

. As the Bank of America's claim for the two million look for the lost two million dollar deposit, Bank of America asserts that it is just attacking the Trump or slew of inclusion, with the trial court rejected this element of damages because it was unforeseeable because the causation was not demonstrated. So Bank of America must demonstrate these fine expropriator roomies. Bank of America is not that able to do so. I see them in my bubble time. Thank you. Just a little bit of power. Yes, thank you, Your Honor. With respect to retainer and his very briefly, the government has essentially more argumented as I heard and was recuted in which it's that, with the lower court guilty of the legitimate discretion, we would submit that in as much as there is no factual difference by retainer and the government. In fact, the fact that this is the case between this case, home savings, the factual difference is that this case has a point of attention. That it is indeed an abuse of discretion or legal error of the law that you are for the court below to come out different from home savings. We ask in other words, the simply that home savings government retainer makes it should think that that is all we need and that would produce the result that we see. On statute of limitations, Mr. Guse somehow suggests that there was damage and indeed there had to be damage in order for the court to be removed. The claim to rule through and the clock to be ticking, Ariadne says that a plaintiff must know that it has been damaged by a breach of contract in order for the claim to be removed and the statute of the plaintiff to be removed. What is the damage that occurred before October 6th? If no damage occurred before October 6th, then it was correct and you would need to know that it was a breach. You need to know that there was a breach. You need to know that there was a breach. Indeed, you need both. The obligation of the law is that it has been damaged and a lot of the legal problems are going to be in my people. Agreed. So you need to have to know what the damage is. You know yet. It has to be a breach, it has to know what damages are. Hopefully we know what damage is worth as a result of the trial, as part of what we are arguing about. But certainly before October 6th, there was no breach and no knowledge of damage. What is the breach? The breach? I'm not sure what it is

. The claim to rule through and the clock to be ticking, Ariadne says that a plaintiff must know that it has been damaged by a breach of contract in order for the claim to be removed and the statute of the plaintiff to be removed. What is the damage that occurred before October 6th? If no damage occurred before October 6th, then it was correct and you would need to know that it was a breach. You need to know that there was a breach. You need to know that there was a breach. Indeed, you need both. The obligation of the law is that it has been damaged and a lot of the legal problems are going to be in my people. Agreed. So you need to have to know what the damage is. You know yet. It has to be a breach, it has to know what damages are. Hopefully we know what damage is worth as a result of the trial, as part of what we are arguing about. But certainly before October 6th, there was no breach and no knowledge of damage. What is the breach? The breach? I'm not sure what it is. There was a post-comment of the decision under a regulation, as Thickney said, we can post on our decision in 30 days. The government apparently suggests that I don't know how they would do it seriously, that as soon as that occurred, a confection would have come into court and said to the court of federal clients, there has been a breach and we are damned. They have to show both. If they, if a confection would have come into court before October 6th, 1989 and made such an argument, it would have not passed the straight face test. Three months later, in the flagship case, which we cited, three months later, after the regulations dealing with the New Cal State of the New York Times in December, after a bunch of other things that occurred, all threat came into court and said we've been damaged and we want an injunction against illegal conduct, and the court said not right, not right. If a confection would come into court before October 6th, the very same thing would have occurred. The government would have defended it as it didn't fly the ship by saying, what's the damage? We haven't said you can't make this acquisition. And if the damage is that there's been a post-comment, well that's not damage at all. So we would have lost that issue, had confed, come into court before October 6th. On structural mutations, you said it wouldn't happen in the New York Times in the New York Times, right? We certainly did not know that until December 7th, because under the regime that governs under Fieryga, on Fieryga like Wall Thrux had until December 7th to counter-wall of the regulatory capital, and it did. And the decision to, even the October 6th decision to require that additional capital to be obtained prior to approval of the acquisition, even that wasn't damaged to the off the testimony Mr. Hughes referred to to the effect that September 22nd was a target good for the acquisition. Comes from a document in which the author, the president of Confed, said, with a whole lot of luck, quote-unquote, we hope to do the acquisition by September 27th

. There was a post-comment of the decision under a regulation, as Thickney said, we can post on our decision in 30 days. The government apparently suggests that I don't know how they would do it seriously, that as soon as that occurred, a confection would have come into court and said to the court of federal clients, there has been a breach and we are damned. They have to show both. If they, if a confection would have come into court before October 6th, 1989 and made such an argument, it would have not passed the straight face test. Three months later, in the flagship case, which we cited, three months later, after the regulations dealing with the New Cal State of the New York Times in December, after a bunch of other things that occurred, all threat came into court and said we've been damaged and we want an injunction against illegal conduct, and the court said not right, not right. If a confection would come into court before October 6th, the very same thing would have occurred. The government would have defended it as it didn't fly the ship by saying, what's the damage? We haven't said you can't make this acquisition. And if the damage is that there's been a post-comment, well that's not damage at all. So we would have lost that issue, had confed, come into court before October 6th. On structural mutations, you said it wouldn't happen in the New York Times in the New York Times, right? We certainly did not know that until December 7th, because under the regime that governs under Fieryga, on Fieryga like Wall Thrux had until December 7th to counter-wall of the regulatory capital, and it did. And the decision to, even the October 6th decision to require that additional capital to be obtained prior to approval of the acquisition, even that wasn't damaged to the off the testimony Mr. Hughes referred to to the effect that September 22nd was a target good for the acquisition. Comes from a document in which the author, the president of Confed, said, with a whole lot of luck, quote-unquote, we hope to do the acquisition by September 27th. I don't think that point gets the government where it wants to go particularly in light of contrary testimony between cited and error brief by the CEO of Confed, that even in the best of the world, the acquisition would not have occurred until the last day of the quarter of September 30th. Now, I may have misunderstood the question from your matter, to Mr. Hughes about the statute of rotation, but certainly there is no circuit that has held that the statute began to run with the enact of Fieryga. If I can have misunderstood the question, I apologize, there's a lot of other circumstances. They said in the context, and the love report here made this point pretty well, there have been statements and opinions in context which did not involve the statute of limitations, statements in the worst of opinion dealing with other issues that the law changed when the statute was enacted. But that is not in the context of a case which is examining when claim approved for statute limitations purposes, I think it's important to bear that in mind. The portion of the court's decision, the love that addressed that, did a pretty good job. Liquidated dividend, the government has a burden of showing the fact that the decision by the court below is to tear error. I don't think it's done so, it was a dividend, it was all capital has cost, this is option. This is a cost thank you Your Honor. We have a couple minutes, your time's up as well. You find up your time, we're extremely here, 175 to, that's kind of wasteful, but give you a couple minutes, but use your time. Thank you Your Honor, I'm enormously grateful, I'll be brief

. I don't think that point gets the government where it wants to go particularly in light of contrary testimony between cited and error brief by the CEO of Confed, that even in the best of the world, the acquisition would not have occurred until the last day of the quarter of September 30th. Now, I may have misunderstood the question from your matter, to Mr. Hughes about the statute of rotation, but certainly there is no circuit that has held that the statute began to run with the enact of Fieryga. If I can have misunderstood the question, I apologize, there's a lot of other circumstances. They said in the context, and the love report here made this point pretty well, there have been statements and opinions in context which did not involve the statute of limitations, statements in the worst of opinion dealing with other issues that the law changed when the statute was enacted. But that is not in the context of a case which is examining when claim approved for statute limitations purposes, I think it's important to bear that in mind. The portion of the court's decision, the love that addressed that, did a pretty good job. Liquidated dividend, the government has a burden of showing the fact that the decision by the court below is to tear error. I don't think it's done so, it was a dividend, it was all capital has cost, this is option. This is a cost thank you Your Honor. We have a couple minutes, your time's up as well. You find up your time, we're extremely here, 175 to, that's kind of wasteful, but give you a couple minutes, but use your time. Thank you Your Honor, I'm enormously grateful, I'll be brief. Levant establishes that the ordinary standard, intent consideration of the learning of the government's career in the year. Carol and Hunter establishes that that standard applies to shareholders without regard to the corporate relationship between them and the corporate entity, without regard to any contractual relationship between the government and their corporation. Your Honor, the government cites so cal, in so cal this core held that Dumaini and Thrall can't stand it, they can't stand it to pursue their claims against the government because they sorry a capital guarantee, just like they did here. That case is different because it involved two integrated agreements, and the terms of those agreements, one of which Dumaini and Thrall were a party two, the other of which they weren't, certainly for on the causation for the ability issues with government damage decisions there. But, damages aren't before the score, Dumaini and Thrall haven't put on a damages case yet, and this score held unequivably in Levant that it is error, it is error to conflate damages issues with standing issues. So your Honor, the trial court heard the holding of Dumaini and Thrall by activity with the government, this courtship reversed that holding, remained the case for the determination of the damages the government opposed to Dumaini and Thrall. Thank you very much. Thank you, Your Honor. We would note that with respect to the injury that is required for the sexual limitations to approve, you just need another injury to approve, and measure that, or have to check the amount of that one. With respect to the approval of this cause of action, in fact, on our 31st, we have the conflict people objecting to a new factor scenarios being plotted up to capital requirements that did not exist at the time of the contract. They are complaining that they are going to have to pull the plug, if this thing is not approved, then roughly a week. Which day? That is August 31st, Your Honor. Does that have any special effects on the 2018? It was a meeting held in August 28th, August 28th, for opposed to conditions, and there was a teleconference on August 31st

. Levant establishes that the ordinary standard, intent consideration of the learning of the government's career in the year. Carol and Hunter establishes that that standard applies to shareholders without regard to the corporate relationship between them and the corporate entity, without regard to any contractual relationship between the government and their corporation. Your Honor, the government cites so cal, in so cal this core held that Dumaini and Thrall can't stand it, they can't stand it to pursue their claims against the government because they sorry a capital guarantee, just like they did here. That case is different because it involved two integrated agreements, and the terms of those agreements, one of which Dumaini and Thrall were a party two, the other of which they weren't, certainly for on the causation for the ability issues with government damage decisions there. But, damages aren't before the score, Dumaini and Thrall haven't put on a damages case yet, and this score held unequivably in Levant that it is error, it is error to conflate damages issues with standing issues. So your Honor, the trial court heard the holding of Dumaini and Thrall by activity with the government, this courtship reversed that holding, remained the case for the determination of the damages the government opposed to Dumaini and Thrall. Thank you very much. Thank you, Your Honor. We would note that with respect to the injury that is required for the sexual limitations to approve, you just need another injury to approve, and measure that, or have to check the amount of that one. With respect to the approval of this cause of action, in fact, on our 31st, we have the conflict people objecting to a new factor scenarios being plotted up to capital requirements that did not exist at the time of the contract. They are complaining that they are going to have to pull the plug, if this thing is not approved, then roughly a week. Which day? That is August 31st, Your Honor. Does that have any special effects on the 2018? It was a meeting held in August 28th, August 28th, for opposed to conditions, and there was a teleconference on August 31st. It also, August 31st, the government sent it a letter after they had this teleconference, or at the same time, in which it had been described that they were in which it was described that, basically, they needed to accomplish this by September 22nd. The government came back and said, you know, there was, you know, it would have been automatically approved, but September 5th, who were going to extend it, and the only reason given to that extension was because they failed to be for ASP, and it will happen. So, the example is that the breach was affected either August 31st, September 5th. Now, with respect to what happened, see what time is up. Based upon the previous breaches. I think you're going to have a cross-found by address, Sheryl was briefly, or is that beyond the teleconference? You know, you just need to cross-check. With respect to Bank Marcos State, that what was the breach here? The breach was that, on Fed, or Bank of America represented, that they had a contract where they did not have to have, have already this grip. It was clear from the events of late August September 1989 that that contract was no longer in place. In fact, by September 14th, we have evidence that, that Hunt 5, HFH already informed OTS, they changed their plan, and the memo, thereby the regulators indicate that they are applying this rule across the board, that Tantle Capital Free must be met at this point, and they're judging application by the basis that bank. By September 22nd, we've got an informal agreement, okay, we're going to raise roughly $100 million, before we've acquired these branches. It's already in place that formal letter hasn't gone out. The point of the word making here on our list, the breach was regulating them on the basis of the Tantle Capital Standard Free, which had started current on August 28th, and clearly it was a breach, no later than, say, June 22nd. Now with respect to our claims in the general, based on the previous briefing in this field, in our arguments today, we respectfully request our appeal be granted, in our motion of strike, not directly materials from the index and preferences of those materials from bank, where it was breached to be granted

. Thank you. Your Honor, may I have 30 seconds to cite two pages of the attendance, but we're not in sight of the numbers. I just want to refer the court to what they are. On the statute of limitations issue, the proposed conditions of August 28th, oh, and I have a hand on the right hand. Okay. Page 4-0-048-0 of the appendix shows that those conditions did not require unfit to comply with the new capital regulations. And page 2-0-030708 shows that the condition on the acquisition was based on safety and soundness rather than on the new capital regulations. All right, thank you